http://theliepolitic.com/2009/...-real-estate-investor/
We all know them. People that abuse the system. People that work a few months of the year, just long enough to qualify for unemployment, and then jump on the unemployment bandwagon. Those that get food stamps to support their families despite being able bodied, often educated and capable of work. And, of course, the people that work ?under the table? while receiving government aid intended for the truly needy.
One such image sticks in our minds from a visit last year to a local softball game. Across the street was a truck distributing food for the needy. A brand new Mercedes pulled up and out popped a couple that walked over and jumped in line. How someone driving a $60,000.00 car qualifies for free food is beyond our imagination, but somehow these people find any way they can to abuse the system.
During Obama?s campaign to promote his stimulus package, he staged an event with a woman, Henrietta Hughes, who, as it turns out, appears to be anything but truly needy. Henrietta was given an audience with Obama to beg for a home. When aid was provided via the offer of free rent by an opportunistic politician, the liberal press spouted that Henrietta was actually given a free home and implied it came from Obama. The lie has propagated through the liberal media and, quite honestly, it nauseated us because it was so obviously staged and such a distorted lie. Well, as it turns out, the lie didn?t end there.
As is often the case with such lies, more information seems to shortly rise up from the darkness to expose the truth. This situation is no different and new information about Henrietta has come to light. It appears that the desperate homeless woman owns real estate she shifted into the name of her son to avoid taxes and acquire government aid. Apparently, Henrietta is the teacher and Tom Daschle is just a student. Henrietta also apparently sold real estate at a significant profit in 2005. Henrietta has now become the poster child the Democrats wish to use to justify the massive expense of helping the chronically unemployed, not-so-needy and not-at-all-homeless.
In the spending package forced through by Democrats and signed into law by Obama, there are extensions of unemployment benefits. We believe that the government is better off extending unemployment only for those that are recently unemployed, not those unemployed annually for years, or decades. We also believe that if the government cannot properly verify actual need, they should stop programs intended for the needy until they can. That would save funds which can be used for programs that actually help America as a whole, not just the unscrupulous. We also believe that if Obama himself cannot discern between this woman and a real homeless person, he shouldn?t be expecting government will actually give our tax dollars to the truly needy when the not-so-needy will grab it first. So much for the myth of Robin Hood.
Clearly, change has come to Washington. I'm suprised Zero's team didn't look into her background, the way they looked into Geithner and company's.
I wonder where the outrage at driving a Mercedes on welfare is, compared to the bank CEOs.
We all know them. People that abuse the system. People that work a few months of the year, just long enough to qualify for unemployment, and then jump on the unemployment bandwagon. Those that get food stamps to support their families despite being able bodied, often educated and capable of work. And, of course, the people that work ?under the table? while receiving government aid intended for the truly needy.
One such image sticks in our minds from a visit last year to a local softball game. Across the street was a truck distributing food for the needy. A brand new Mercedes pulled up and out popped a couple that walked over and jumped in line. How someone driving a $60,000.00 car qualifies for free food is beyond our imagination, but somehow these people find any way they can to abuse the system.
During Obama?s campaign to promote his stimulus package, he staged an event with a woman, Henrietta Hughes, who, as it turns out, appears to be anything but truly needy. Henrietta was given an audience with Obama to beg for a home. When aid was provided via the offer of free rent by an opportunistic politician, the liberal press spouted that Henrietta was actually given a free home and implied it came from Obama. The lie has propagated through the liberal media and, quite honestly, it nauseated us because it was so obviously staged and such a distorted lie. Well, as it turns out, the lie didn?t end there.
As is often the case with such lies, more information seems to shortly rise up from the darkness to expose the truth. This situation is no different and new information about Henrietta has come to light. It appears that the desperate homeless woman owns real estate she shifted into the name of her son to avoid taxes and acquire government aid. Apparently, Henrietta is the teacher and Tom Daschle is just a student. Henrietta also apparently sold real estate at a significant profit in 2005. Henrietta has now become the poster child the Democrats wish to use to justify the massive expense of helping the chronically unemployed, not-so-needy and not-at-all-homeless.
In the spending package forced through by Democrats and signed into law by Obama, there are extensions of unemployment benefits. We believe that the government is better off extending unemployment only for those that are recently unemployed, not those unemployed annually for years, or decades. We also believe that if the government cannot properly verify actual need, they should stop programs intended for the needy until they can. That would save funds which can be used for programs that actually help America as a whole, not just the unscrupulous. We also believe that if Obama himself cannot discern between this woman and a real homeless person, he shouldn?t be expecting government will actually give our tax dollars to the truly needy when the not-so-needy will grab it first. So much for the myth of Robin Hood.
Clearly, change has come to Washington. I'm suprised Zero's team didn't look into her background, the way they looked into Geithner and company's.
I wonder where the outrage at driving a Mercedes on welfare is, compared to the bank CEOs.
Facebook
Twitter